Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.

The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.

The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.

  • Hagdos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    131·
    10 months ago

    There are unnecessarily large amounts of nicotine in cigarettes, making them very addictive.

    Forced is a strong word, but many smokers aren’t smoking out of free will either

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      10 months ago

      Sure, and I’d support smoking cessation resources at public expense. Not banning though

      • Hagdos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        10 months ago

        I think I would. But at least I’d like to ban the practice of adding unnecessary amounts of nicotine.

        Why allow companies to make their cigarettes unnecessarily addictive, and then use public funds for smoking cessation resources. That’s the world upside down.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  10 months ago

                  “Ensure liberty” and “provide for the common good” or similar language.

                  It’s entirely within character for a good government to promote freedom of choice on the one hand (including freedom to make bad decisions) and provide resources to help people (not force people) to make healthier decisions on the other hand.

                  • Hagdos@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Ensure liberty is a very broad statement, and usually not an absolute one.

                    In most countries you aren’t free to sell, buy or consume meth, for example, because it clashes with the common good. You could make the same arguments for an abundance of nicotine in cigarettes, or even cigarettes as a whole. You could even make that argument against alcohol, speeding, wearing helmets, having guns, or eating fast food.

                    There’s a line somewhere, and where that line is exactly is not “written in the constitution” for most countries. It’s one that can be, and is argued all the time.

                  • tillimarleen@feddit.deEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Kinda

                    I wouldn’t conflate democratic with good government because it gives us certain freedoms. The liberty in contemporary democratic societies is of a certain kind. Foremost it is the liberty of trade, property and production. Other liberties follow through that. The consumer side freedom of choice follows just as the freedom to theoretically take any job. The state may allow you that, but you may still be excluded by the choices of those whose liberty is guaranteed as well. I mean a government that treats everyone the same, isn’t necessarily good, if its citizens have different means to begin with.